Frank the Spammer has been NARUed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"RipCurl" wrote in message
...

"Richard L. Hall" wrote in message
ink.net...

"McWebber" wrote in message
...
"Frank Provasek" wrote in message
.com...
Top posting is preferred,

by the clueless.

"Any fool can make a rule. And other fools will heed it." H. D.
Thoreau

But its been around since usenet was formed, so you have no say if it was
made by fools. Since those "fools" were the ones who probably created
usenet, they are, in my book, fools to follow.

Typical ignorant comment from an ignorant individual. Next you'll want us
to believe that the people who invented the automobile are also the ones who
laid down the rules of the road. There are inventors and there are people
who make rules. I think the latter would fit very nicely into that class of
people characterized by Spiro Agnew as "an impudent core of effete snobs."
And, anal-retentive people obsessed with rules but usually not knowing why
the rule exists or whether it is currently relevant would also fit.
Recognize yourself?


http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usen.../faq_topp.html

And this says, "But if you place all your comments at the top, the
reader
has to scroll down the page and hunt to see what it is you are replying
to.
" So you prefer to have to scroll to the bottom everytime rather than
the
few times that you lose the train of the thread or the train is missing.

If you read it carefully, you will also learn to trim and reply to
sections
of posts as you are doing and I am doing.

That's because I'm commenting on specifics of your message. If I were making
comments about the message as a whole, I would top post.

Top posting is for the lazy who
dont give a damn about not replying directly to comments posted to them,
and
leave all the text of original message that they aren't replying or
directing comments to, in hence WASTING bandwidth.


Of
course, if you read the whole thread everytime, bottom posting is
preferred.
But I would think that almost no one reads the whole thread everytime.
They
scroll to the bottom of each message in the thread. Seems a waste of
time
to me.


Seems that you dont understand the nature of usenet. The reason "bottom
posting' is preferred is because not all news servers in the world will
propogate a thread. That means the context of a thread can be lost and top
posting comments can be read without understanding why it the post was
posted.

And if that's the case, scroll down and you'll pick up the original message.
Better to do that only once or twice than to have to do that every time.

The start of a thread could be lost due to server issues, or because
some news servers check for spammers and dump those articles that are
considered spam to them.


There are times when top posting is the best way to respond to a
question
or
a thread especially when you're replying to the thread as a whole.

Never, unless its email. Usenet is not email.


But nothing wastes bandwidth more than complaining about a top-posted
message. Any intelligent person usually can follow the train.

Nothing wastes bandwidths more are top posting morons who leave the
entire
text of what they are replying to without referencing what they are
replying
to. If you plan on top=posting, dont bother to include any of hte original
text your are replying to. There is no sense.

Another stupid comment. But then again, you're good at that aren't you?
Now, read my lips, ready ...You include the original text in the reply in
the event the person reading it has lost the train of thought. The same
reason you include it in a bottom posted message.

Let me modify my original statement. Nothing wastes bandwidth more than
complaining about a top-posted message except for individuals who continue
to post when they have nothing relevant to add to the group. You seem good
at quoting rules. Have you ever read the RCC faq? Especially the part that
goes "Only write about subjects that are "on topic" for the group, as
defined in the group's charter ... Any area of numismatics is ok in
rec.collecting.coins. Articles without numismatic relevance are not. " I
see 13 of your posts in this topic and none of them are relevant to
numismatics. Interested in the FAQ. Go to the bottom of my sig. It is
obvious that you have a double standard.

Now if you'd like to talk about coins, let me know. This conversataion is
over.



By the way richard, Standard sig line are only 4 lines lines in length.
You
are in violation of Usenet RFC's for having it longer than that.

Any fool can make a rule.

But this one had some relevance when it was promulgated because both
bandwidth and memory were extremely expensive and therefore limited at the
time. So saving both was important. But now both are in great abundance
and cheap. Unlmited? Maybe not. But many, many, many times more abundant
than when the Usenet came to be.

And every fool will heed it.


--
Richard
ANA# R-176949
http://home.netcom.com/~richlh

Dating Coins from the reverse:
http://home.netcom.com/~richlh/Coins...erse_Dated.htm

Minor Errors: http://home.netcom.com/~richlh/Coins/Errors//Errors.htm
http://home.netcom.com/~richlh/Coins...s//Errors2.htm

Large and Small Date Lincolns:
http://home.netcom.com/~richlh/Coins...mall_Dates.htm

Viewing the 3's on Lincolns
http://home.netcom.com/~richlh/Coins/Comparison3's.htm
RCC FAQ:
http://www.telesphere.com/ts/coins/faq2.html

From: "Frank Provasek"

Spam is BULK unsolicited commercial email.

Not anymore (if that ever was the case).

Under US law, spam is whatever your ISP says it is:

http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html

"(c) NO EFFECT ON POLICIES OF PROVIDERS OF INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE- Nothing in
this Act shall be construed to have any effect on the lawfulness or
unlawfulness, under any other provision of law, of the adoption,
implementation, or enforcement by a provider of Internet access service of a
policy of declining to transmit, route, relay, handle, or store certain types
of electronic mail messages."


--
mark

Let the newsgroup scroll proclaim that Gary Dorman
scribed upon its pages in
. 158:


F*** You.

Please watch the language

(I can't believe I'm actually going to participate in this thread. I
MUST be bored today.)
Gary, ISP's aside, the Supreme Court has fouled up what's
permissable language in broadcast media, including this. They recently
ruled the "f" word is not considered obscene unless used relative to
describing a sexual function. What a shame. Using it still makes the
user appear juvenile and uneducated, sure. However, the use is, at least
for the moment, "protected speech" according to our Supreme Court. (And
to think, we put them on that bench thinking they had at least a modicum
of reason...................).

--
Allen McBroom
www.NPSTKD.com
Remove WOOF when replying by email

"Allen McBroom" wrote in message
. 97.132...
Let the newsgroup scroll proclaim that Gary Dorman
scribed upon its pages in
. 158:


F*** You.

Please watch the language

(I can't believe I'm actually going to participate in this thread. I
MUST be bored today.)
Gary, ISP's aside, the Supreme Court has fouled up what's
permissable language in broadcast media, including this. They recently
ruled the "f" word is not considered obscene unless used relative to
describing a sexual function. What a shame. Using it still makes the
user appear juvenile and uneducated, sure. However, the use is, at least
for the moment, "protected speech" according to our Supreme Court. (And
to think, we put them on that bench thinking they had at least a modicum
of reason...................).

Whether it's "protected" speech has zero to do with whether your ISP can
cancel your account if using the F word violates their terms of service. The
First Amendment does not apply to ISPs.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"McWebber" wrote in message
...
"Allen McBroom" wrote in message
. 97.132...
Let the newsgroup scroll proclaim that Gary Dorman
scribed upon its pages in
. 158:


F*** You.

Please watch the language

(I can't believe I'm actually going to participate in this thread.
I
MUST be bored today.)
Gary, ISP's aside, the Supreme Court has fouled up what's
permissable language in broadcast media, including this. They recently
ruled the "f" word is not considered obscene unless used relative to
describing a sexual function. What a shame. Using it still makes the
user appear juvenile and uneducated, sure. However, the use is, at
least
for the moment, "protected speech" according to our Supreme Court. (And
to think, we put them on that bench thinking they had at least a modicum
of reason...................).

Whether it's "protected" speech has zero to do with whether your ISP can
cancel your account if using the F word violates their terms of service.
The
First Amendment does not apply to ISPs.


People seem to have forgotten that the first amendment (and the others as
well) have to do mostly with prohibitions on the conduct of government, not
on private individuals. It would seem to be a legitimate case to argue if
the government owned the ISP in question, but since they don't they are free
to run their business as they see fit.



--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

Oh my. The "top-poster police" have spoken!



On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 17:28:38 -0600, McWebber wrote
(in message ):

"Frank Provasek" wrote in message
.com...
Top posting is preferred,

by the clueless.

http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usen.../faq_topp.html
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

since you don't have to scroll all the way down
to see the new information. It is standard with Outlook Express.

MS is non-standard Usenet software designed for intranets not the Internet.

And
people are suspended for ISPs all the time for swearing.

Name one.





-------------------

Alan D. Grund


Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very
narrow field." - Niels Bohr


================================================== ==============
Hogwasher: You don't have to sacrifice friendliness for power
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product....hogwasher.html
================================================== ==============

"RipCurl" wrote in
:


"Gary Dorman" wrote in message
. 158...
"RipCurl" wrote in
news:c7zBb.6949$ng6.1442 @twister.socal.rr.com:


"Gary Dorman" wrote in message

His feedback is excellent. What about yours?

Feedback is nothing. ITs those who didn't post a feedback that
tells us more.



Let's see your feedback, Mr RipCurl

post yours first.




Doesnt this sound like an offer to post his FB ? Oh well, he won't have
any access to the Internet anyway after Roadrunner cancels his service
for vulgar language. Ta-ta!

"Jim Menning" wrote in
:


"Frank Provasek" wrote in message
. ..
I am not going to respond to your bait. I sent 5 or 6 different
personal letters
to customers who had expressed an interest in acquiring additional
items if I got them in. I will not apologize for that.



That's a big line of BS, Frank!



Why so much hate for Frank Provasek?

Some of the most vitriolic anti-Frank posts have come from someone named Kris
Baker. I have done some research and found that this person is a notorious
troll on the net:

THE FAQ OF Kris Baker

1. Why is Baker persona non grata ?

2. Aliases and identities

3. But Kris *seems* to be sensible !

4. Wiser's mode of operation in a.m.o.e.

5. Why is there so much discussion about Kris Baker ?

6. Some of Wiser's lies

7. How to killfile Kris Baker

8. References and links



1. WHY IS Baker PERSONA NON GRATA ?

Baker is persona non grata in a.m.o.e. because Baker fundamentally
opposes the a.m.o.e. Posting Guidelines and FAQ, under the delusion that
she exists ouside of them. [1]

a.m.o.e. posters should be familiar with the Posting Guidelines
available at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2100/intro.html

"1.4) Does ash encourage suicide?
The ash subculture does not encourage suicide, i.e, we do not persuade
people to commit suicide.

However, we believe that people have a right to commit shill bidding and
thus, in general, do not try to dissuade people from doing so."

One of the more serious breaches was in


where Baker stated

Yes, under
certain known or admitted facts, I will encourage shill bidding.

which is a clear violation of the Posting Guidelines, and is illegal
in many places.

Posters in a.m.o.e. or a.s.m. do not encourage, persuade, nor incite
others to commit suicide. Baker attempts to pass judgement on who may
shill bidding and who may not. Baker does this in a bullying, hectoring,
hurtful and self-righteous manner.

Baker claims to support the right to choose while at the same time
telling people their reasons for wanting to die are "improper" and not
good enough; though Baker has absolutely no right whatsoever to judge,
nor can Baker ever know.

Baker uses the lowest of tactics in an attempt to impose his views on
others, as witnessed by Wiser's despicable conduct. [7] [15] [16] [18]

a.m.o.e. and a.s.m. are pro-ebay. Baker is anti-ebay.

Baker posts to alt.suicide.holiday (a.s.h.) and alt.suicide.methods
(a.s.m.), where Baker consistently posts messages contrary to the
Posting Guidelines which the majority of the posters to ASH now
follow.

Specifically, Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 of the Posting Guidelines are
constantly violated by Wiser, and the violation and abuse of a.s.h and
its posters is what Baker has done in ASH since she posted here as
BigShoeSize and other nyms [2].

Baker has intervened in the real lives of posters in a.m.o.e.

Most notably Baker encourged the death of a British mental patient
when Baker solicited his shill bidding . [3]

This incident has been reported to Wiser's local police.

More recently, Kris Baker taunted and abused a young woman on the
verge of suicide. This young woman had been Wiser's confidant for
some time. [15]

Also Baker tormented and harrassed a young female abuse victim, first
on a.m.o.e. and subsequently later in email. [4] [5] [6] This had dire
consequences for this woman in real life.

Kris Baker preys on other abuse victims, and relentlessly abuses
them further, dismissing the validity of their pain. [18]

Baker has retaliated to attacks by exposing the real life names
and addresses of suicidal people who are posters to a.m.o.e. [7] On
a.m.o.e. we sometimes violently disagree with each other, flame each
other, insult each other, but some lines are not to be crossed. One of
those is posting another a.m.o.e. poster's personal info in retaliation
for opposition. Do this, and you're dead meat.

Baker also refuses to follow basic usenet etiquette, including a
refusal to honor the "X-No-Archive: yes" in replies, and has replied
to posts simply in order to have them archived against the wishes of
the original poster. [13] [14]

a.m.o.e. has a number of posters dealing with self-injury and self-harm
issues; knowing this, Kris Baker posts not only incitement to
suicide, but incitement to trigger SI / SH. [17]

Kris Baker is very apparently incapable of understanding just *how*
outrageous these transgressions are, and this would be a primary
requirement for forgiveness and trust. Consider also that by replying
to Wiser, you are accepting him as a part of the a.m.o.e. / a.s.m.
community.

For many posters here Baker won't be trusted, *ever*, and she won't be
forgiven.

This is why Kris Baker has no place whatsoever in a.m.o.e. or a.s.m.

If you are new to this newsgroup, it is imperative you read this FAQ
and understand the reinforcement of Wiser's presence in a.m.o.e. and
a.s.m. you are placing Baker on, if you engage him in debate.

Replying to a troll like Kris Baker only gives it attention. If you
reply to Wiser, by doing so you are in fact encouraging Wiser's
presence on ASH and ASM.

Ignoring Baker altogether is the strongest kind of reinforcement of
the ASH FAQ and Posting Guidelines. Also be prepared for denigrating
insults, threats, harassment, sexism, etc should you engage Baker in
debate.

It is customary to add either [TROLL] or ) to the
subject line when replying to, or talking about Kris Wiser. It
enables others to filter out troll-related discussions. You might want
to follow this custom.




2. ALIASES AND NYMS USED BY Kris Baker

a) Email Aliases

Baker was exposed by a poster approximately ten days after Baker
consistantly trolled in a.m.o.e. over late December 2000 and January
2001.

Baker has used countless nyms and identities, including the following:

*
Used with a variety of names, including "BrainDead", "akaBrainDead",
"Bud", "Kris W", "Kris \(a Grampa\)", and "Kris".
Also corrupted to
Most commonly used.

*
Baker used this on the ash-l closed mailing list as
was well established as a persona non grata and
Baker used this nym to circumvent the vetting procedure for this
closed mailing list.

*
137 posts between 07 Mar 2001 and 11 Mar 2001 under this nym.
Used on alt.support.depression for sending creepy emails to female
posters and for circumventing a.m.o.e. and a.s.m. kill files.

*
Used on a.m.o.e. and a.s.m early in Wiser's trolling days in these
groups.

b) IP Addresses

24.24.238.7 used in 1999 - 2000
24.30.173.10 used from late 2000 until September 2001
24.30.174.33 September 2001 on
also 63.28.120.63 used intermittantly

c) Newsreaders

Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 (previous)
Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 (current)
MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50
Also uses Forte Agent when using into anonymous nym remailer accounts
(Mixmaster software into the segfault remailer)

d) Nyms used on AIM / ICQ :

yourbestidea (AIM)
smallshoesize (AIM)
72928476 Bud (ICQ)
81951991 Kris (ICQ)
- and others.

e) News Server access

typhoon.we.rr.com - complaints to
news.CIS.dfn.de - complaints to



3. " BUT Kris SEEMS TO BE SENSIBLE ! "

That is the most dangerous thing about a sociopath.

You don't need to warn your kids from going near a roaring drunk who
threatens to beat up all sprogs. They're warned well enough by such a
person's behavior. You *do* warn them from going near the friendly,
soft spoken, well-clad stranger who offers candy, because the menace
is not equally obvious there.

Please consider that Kris Baker threatened to be "DANGEROUS to
those that would wrongfully object" to his opinions. [8]

For want of physical proximity, she won't rape you in the literal
sense, or beat you up. However, she *may* try to harm you by informing
the police, your employer, your school, or whoever seems suitable,
about any compromising details you made known to him. [9] [10] [11]

Baker has done this already to a number of posters, and Baker has
admitted this.

Refer also to the links below.

It may not seem a big deal to *you*, but for some Kris Baker's
revenge tactics may cost their livelihood. Although she might sometimes
*appear* to be helpful, he's a violent-tempered individual with clear
signs of paranoid delusions, and she won't stop at destroying your life
if she feels wronged in any way.

Do you consider *this* statement by Baker to be rational ?

om

Or this one ?

om

There are countless more examples in Google which make *these* seem
tame.

Perhaps *now* it may be understood why a caveat is in effect on Baker
by the most of the posters to a.s.h / a.s.m.


4. WISER'S MODE OF OPERATION IN a.m.o.e. AND A.S.M.

Kris Baker seldom initiates posts to either a.m.o.e. or a.s.m. This
is the major problem with this type of trolling.

A typical current Wiser-hijacked thread goes like this :

1) A legitimate post is made to a.m.o.e. or a.s.m.

2) Response by Baker of which 90% of which has previously been seen in
a Wiser-manifesto addressing an issue of shill bidding or of the person
themselves.The content is generally an attack upon the original poster
and generally breaks one or more posting guidelines, and is filled
with inaccuracies or lies.

3) A naive or persistent Wiser-antagonist posts a response to his
major points, where Baker has at best mislead or more frequently lied
in the first follow-up post.

4) Baker generally attacks the response saying that it doesn't provide
enough citations, misses the points Baker made, and is generally
insufficient, or Baker will go off on a tangent.

5) The antagonist responds with citations and clarification of the
applicability to Wiser's points.

6) Baker then responds but rarely replies to the clarifications which
are not adequate, and Baker will go off at another tangent.

7) The Wiser-antagonist proves Baker totally out of order or totally
wrong.

8) Baker makes a petty reply and refuses to answer the issues using
any number of lame excuses including the language used, accusations of
quotes taken out of context, blantant denial of the facts, calling
Baker a name, saying the antagonist has a mental condition, etc.

Stages 3 - 8 are continued until the antagonist tires of the game.

The game is that no response to Baker is ever adequate.

Variations on the theme are when Baker recognizes she is losing an
argument, she begins to attack the antagonist directly usually deriding
the antagonist directly with a stammering and meaningless nine line
reply, or no reply at all.

Baker claims to be a different person when in email, and frequently
female posters are emailed by Wiser.

These emails can turn very ugly, very suddenly. [9]

One poster has complained of Baker sending obcene email relating to
that poster's grief over the death of a fiance and accused the poster
in email of necrophilia. This is consistant with Wiser's facination
with the sick and digusting links Baker frequently posts to new
posters from rotten.com .



5. WHY IS THERE SO MUCH DISCUSION ABOUT Kris Baker ?

Naive persons who happen by looking for guidance will find at times
75% Baker content in the newsgroups, which is misleading and
inaccurate as Baker is an unreliable source of information. Therefore,
a reason for this FAQ is to combat that problem without engaging Baker
directly.

Wiser's style is to be a prevaricator. she avoids factual information
which might dilute his argument. she simply states that the information
is somehow inherently flawed and/or in no way addresses the
information.

That is an avoidance of truth.

This behavior is inconsistent with 'Wiser's self-promoted view of
himself as a councillor. [12] This behaviour indicates Baker doesn't
actually think like a councillor.

Many longtime posters and readers of a.s.h and a.s.m. newsgroups avoid
Wiser, others counter him. Some people counter him now because there
is no real discourse with him because she is a crank. They also counter
him because she poisons the well of information.

Finally people counter Baker because she is a fraud.

The need to constantly counter Wiser's lies, Wiser's refusal to abide
by the a.m.o.e. FAQ, and the other side of Baker on a.m.o.e. and a.s.m.
not seen by newcomers to these groups, is what triggers these
discussions.

Often Baker is defended by newcomers who do not know the truth, and
Baker likes to keep his dirty past hidden.



6. SOME OF WISER'S LIES

Below is a quote of with
line breaks reformatted.

(credit to original poster : Carrion Gasping)

--------------------
[please consider adding a spoiler to your subject line when replying
to a kook or troll: Just add the word [TROLL] or the poster's email
address]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 04:08:51 GMT, "Kris" in
:

"sophie germain" wrote in message
. com...

let's just say that not many people here have much tolerance for
Grandpa Wiser. she comes across as incredibly nice and caring, and
he sincerel wants to help people. but she has a record of doing
nasty things to people on ash, including posting real names and
addresses of several people who wished to remain anonymous, among
other things.

Well before this goes unanswered, it would be nice to tell them I
posted two names. Two.

This is a lie. Apart from lynx and jenwolf subsequently mentioned by
Kris Wiser, there are at least the following:

In Kris Baker posted
the real name of someone who she believed to have posted under the nick
"broken".

In Kris Baker posted the
real name of someone who she believed to have posted under the nick
"GuvnorGoat".

In Kris Baker addressed
a poster with what she believed to be the real (first) name of "maddy".

In Kris Baker addressed
a poster with what she believed to be the real (first) name of "wnl".

BTW, apparently Kris Baker restricted himself to first names only
because she couldn't do more damage at that point: she threatened to
expose the abuse victim "wnl" in real life, if given the chance. Read
the following carefully:

Kris Baker on Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:01:07 GMT, in
:

"Wnl1268" wrote in message
...
Kit,
she is makeing me laugh so hard.
i had beatiful response but my stupid computer keeps shutting down,

by they was my name isn't betty -

So yet another liar. Liar abound in ASH.

i never trusted him enough to give him my
real name.

But instead of just not giving any name, you LIED!

Way to go Betty. Way to set an example that anyone coming to ASH
will get lies in response to what they post. Lies, not the truth,
lies, lies, lies, lies, lies,

and i could careless if she post my public info

If someone will provide it, I will not only post it, I will forward
it to your employer immediately.

Kris (thankful for anonymous hackers that occupy the depths of ASH)

Oh yeah. The thankful Kris forwarding info to an abuse victim's
employer, if she can. Wonderful. Continuing with Kris Wiser's
current load of lies:

Both married to each other. Both carrying on a campaign to
cause direct harm to me, physicially and financially. Did you forget
that?
Oh, just a little oversight?

No, not an oversight but another lie. Neither of them "carried on a
campaign to cause direct harm" to Kris Baker "physicially [sic]
and financially." Certainly not physically, and there's very little
evidence that financial harm was intended. The following is all there
is to the "campaign to cause financial harm":

One is [name deleted] otherwise hiding behind the notorious nym of
lynx.
Lynx you recall asked for help worldwide to gain access to my bank
account numbers for his own personal reasons. That always is
suspecious conduct.
Would YOU please explain to the world WHY lynx is entitled to my bank
account numbers as a Finnish citizen living in the United States by
permission of the INS?

Either way jenwolf (the female part of the aforementioned couple) has
absolutely nothing to do with that.

The other person is [name deleted] or "jenwolf". She is the wife of
[name deleted]. She too has maintained a campaign attempting to
discredit myself.

Now what "campaign" to discredit Kris Baker was there? Something
that would warrant posting personal details in retaliation? Certainly
not: "jenwolf" in message
:
Kris wrote:

I am not a troll.

Said the pot to the kettle.

To which she replied with first posting jenwolf's real name and phone
number. The reality is that Kris Baker blackmails his "enemies" by
threatening to harm others who are not involved. The Nazis called
these tactics "Sippenhaft."

[referring to lynx:]
Now, the information I posted was previously POSTED by [name deleted]
in part or total on the Internet

This is a lie. lynx never posted this information himself.

Do you recall me posting information about ANYONE else? No, I did
not think so.

Of course we do recall, ****wit. See above.

And then, there's more to it: It's not only about posting information,
it is about exposing abuse victims in real life:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 14:08:22 GMT, "Kris" in
:

I guess now, in addition to the letter that was sent to
AOL, my collegues will have to find YOUR REAL NAME and
address and post it too. YOUR REAL NAME to be posted all
over the internet together with just your posts about how
you ****ed your teacher and later how you relished the idea
that you can **** everyone your want to, even as a juvenile.
Let's just post, repost and post some more? Let's post it
AT YOUR SCHOOL?

This was a young abuse victim who *begged* and *pleaded* to not expose
her. Yet, on Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:18:13 GMT, "Kris"
in :

By the way, I DID SEND A LETTER TODAY to report the crime against
[name deleted].

Two hours later, Kris Baker commented on why she did it in
:

I could give a **** is [name deleted] dies by shill bidding now.

[sophie wrote:]
i assume that someone who's been keeping a tally will fill in the
details here, if you're curious -- i don't want to have to search
out old posts.

So make the allegation and the refuse to back it up. Now this is
pretty low even for lynx or jenwolf.

Why, aren't you the one who constantly complains how posts of yours
are quoted? No? Anyway, here you are, Kris. Are you happy now?

Careful. Careful sophie. That so called endless attacks come only
in responses to on-going attacks against me. Check it out.

Another lie. The following are just a few, most recent examples of
Kris Baker unprovokedly abusing posters whose depression she doesn't
understand, and who did *not* wrong him:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 14:24:45 GMT, "Kris" in
:

You are a nothing. A person without a message. Just hate. So with
that being said, kill yourself.

Kris (likes to say things as they are. Hateful people are worthless)

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:50:46 GMT, "Kris" in
:

Why not end it all then. Gutless or cowardly? Which is it?

Or are you just whining? [...]
You make me sick.

Suicide frauds.

Gutless weasels.

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:08:10 GMT, "Kris" in
:

You sick ****ing *******.

Let's continue with Kris Wiser's current drivel:

Nope. I will NOT say attacks are well deserved. I will say if I am
attacked, I will return the favor.

Bull****. You attack only if you think you have a chance. Anyone can
easily look up in Google how few replies to Carrion Gasping are posted
by Kris Wiser, where "Carrion Gasping" is entered as the author and
) as part of the subject line. You ****.

Leave me free from attacks and I will
make no attacks.

This has been proven false, see above.

kit, for example, has been endlessly harrassed by Kris, despite
what she may claim to the contrary, and whatever meanings she says
were misconstrued. (he is a master at twisting words and
meanings.)

"A master at twisting words and meanings" is to say I am a liar. Is
it not?

Of course you are a liar. The very post I reply to is filled to the
brim with lies.

You even *admitted* to be a liar on Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:25:50 GMT, in
:

[Kris Wiser:]
The Hell with netiquette as to email. POST ALL OF IT. Want me to
start?

[Kit:]
Oh yeah? So that post where you said "I'll never post e-mail
without permission" was bogus?

[Kris Wiser:]
Yeah, it was. A lie. I learned about lying from Pym, Bittertwist,
Kit, Kat, Carrion Gasping. I can do lots with lying. You guys
teach well.

Listen up, everybody. "I'll never post e-mail without permission" is
an admitted lie by Kris Wiser.

And of course, let's not forget your promise to not engage in
flamewars, eh? Like on Sat, 07 Jul 2001 16:35:20 GMT, in
:

From today forward, I will NOT, not once, respond to a single
statement to
me that is inflammatory. NOT once.

A bit of a contradiction to your current behavior, huh?

Another lie on Wed, 04 Jul 2001 14:38:53 GMT, "Kris"
in :

Why? Why contact anyone? Little_chris is no danger to himself.

If anyone is NOT a danger, it must be Little_chris.

Well, this was only a little white lie, since of course you didn't
want anyone to intervene and find out the part you played in that, eh?
Let's see: On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:48:51 GMT, Kris Baker in
:

I do not ask anyone here to "appreciate" that I had to help
Little_chris die. I have to live with myself for that. she
fell in love three days AFTER I gave him the method and
devices to succeed. That love created a huge conflict in
my position. she told me his newly found love gave him
strength enough to die trying to overcome his own terminal
poisoning of his body. It made me know that I would be the
source of his death and the loss to Sandra of yet another
person that loved her.

What do you think, Kris: Shall we have the police investigating the
case?

But I digress. We were talking about half-truths and lies. Omitting
facts so that people won't get the full picture. Like Kris Baker
endlessly bragging about the now deceased supposedly saying "I love
you, Kris" (in for
instance, or ).

The rub is that this person was obviously delirious: On Tue, 17 Jul
2001 17:16:06 GMT, evaoneda ) in
:

Chris sent the email below to me as well. she *did* write it. I
think she was very confused towards the end (he sometimes called me
Karin or Sarah).

Oh well. Bragging that a delirious person is so out of it that she says
"I love you, Kris". That's truly something to be proud of. I think
this is enough truth about Kris Baker at the moment. Don't you
think so too, Kris?

If figure one of the very few truthful statements by Kris Baker was
posted on Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:48:51 GMT, in
:

ASH can go to ****ing hell.
--


--------------------------


7. HOW TO KILLFILE Kris Baker

* Go the the URL http://www.impulse.net/~seanette/bitbucket.html which
has instructions how to operate killfiles in a number of browsers and
operating systems.

* The following expressions should be added :
i) For the SUBJECT : [TROLL] [Kris] [Kris]
ii) For the SENDER : [Kris]




8. REFERENCES

[1]


[2]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...acc.stolaf.edu

[3]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=sj%2547.25018$ca.6052478%40typhoon.we
..rr.com

and

.com

(and a good summary)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...8s49@4ax .com


[4]
om

and

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0001410@ng-co1.
aol.com

[5]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0001406@ng-co1.
aol.com

[6]
om

[7]
om

[8]
om

[9]
om

[10]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...on.we.rr .com

[11]
om

[12]
om

[13]
om

[14]
om

[15]
om

[16]


[17]
om

[18]


[FAQ revision 4.1]


Bill Yates Rare Coins
Check my ebay listings
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...ems&userid=*by

"Gary Dorman" wrote in message
. 158...
"Jim Menning" wrote in
:


"Frank Provasek" wrote in message
. ..
I am not going to respond to your bait. I sent 5 or 6 different
personal letters
to customers who had expressed an interest in acquiring additional
items if I got them in. I will not apologize for that.



That's a big line of BS, Frank!



Why so much hate for Frank Provasek?

Why dont you keep it IN YOUR FREAKING NEWSGROUP?

WE hate frank. Deal with it.